I have so much to say about this list but I am going to be a good boy today.
As if. John Lennon a better singer than Otis Redding? Not!
This list is a real world example of everything that's wrong with Rolling Stone.
These lists are always subjective. I wouldn't have included Karen Carpenter, Steve Winwood, Axl Rose(too shrill) or Whitney Houston(doesn't so much as sing a song as beat it to death).Many of my favorite singers don't have good voices technically but seem to do the best versions of their own songs(Dylan, Lou Reed, Tom Waits, Neil Young).Also Jeff Buckley but no Tim Buckley?
Jerry got it right.
Bob Dylan 7, Art Garfunkel 86?No. Just no.
Lawrence-I have to agree with Rolling Stone on this one. Dylan has a huge volume of work. Garfunkel does not. His solo records are pretty bland.
But it's not about "best Composer" or "best Singer-Songwriter." it's "Best Singer," and Art Garfunkel clearly has a voice that's vastly superior to Dylan's.
Still rather hear Dylan sing Bridge Over Troubled Waters than Garfunkel sing Positively 4th Street.
I knew when I got to #20 and still didn't see Linda Ronstadt that this wasn't going to end well.....
Whatever you think of Karen Carpenter's persona, she had a great voice and brilliant phrasing. I'd listen to her over most of the rest of the list any day.
Have to agree to disagree-Karen Carpenters voice just sounded to light for me-besides having to sing crappy Paul Williams songs. Give me Chrissie Hynde anyday.
I looked at 1 and 2 and knew this list would be nonsense. It was.
What I do like about these lists (even though I always disagree - no Emmylou Harris on this list) is that it makes me go search for something new. At #60 was Brant Bjork. Never heard of him. Now, thanks to youtube I have both seen and heard him. Not my usual listening fare but it was a nice sideway path to wander along for a half hour.- d. middleton
Post a Comment